The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that claims broadly directed to optimizing signal constellations for a particular result were patent ineligible, but upheld claims directed to specific constellations. The Court also confirmed that industry standards may be used on a limitation-by-limitation basis to prove infringement. Constellation Designs LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2026) (Stoll, Lourie, JJ.; Oetken, District J., sitting by designation).
Constellation Designs sued LG for infringement of four patents directed to digital communication systems using signal constellations to transmit and decode data. Constellation accused LG televisions compatible with the ATSC 3.0 over-the-air television broadcast standard, specifically its A/322 protocol. The asserted claims fell into two groups: claims reciting geometrically spaced symbol constellations optimized for capacity using parallel decode (PD) capacity (optimization claims) and claims reciting specific non-uniform constellations (constellation claims).
The district court granted Constellation summary judgment that all asserted claims were patent eligible under 35 USC § 101. Following trial, a jury found that LG willfully infringed the asserted claims and awarded Constellation about $1.68 million in damages. The district court denied LG’s post-trial motions challenging infringement and damages, and entered an ongoing royalty of $6.75 per television. LG appealed.
Addressing patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit distinguished between the optimization claims and the constellation claims. At step one of the Alice framework, the Court concluded that the optimization claims were directed to the abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for PD capacity. The claims recited a desired result (improved capacity at a reduced signal-to-noise ratio) but did not recite how to achieve that result. The Court analogized the claims to the result-oriented claims found ineligible in other cases, explaining that the claims broadly covered essentially all ways of optimizing a constellation for PD capacity.
Although the specification described techniques for performing the optimization, the claims did not recite those details. The Federal Circuit explained that the § 101 inquiry focuses on the claim language and that technical details disclosed only in the specification cannot be imported into the claims to establish eligibility. At Alice step two, the Court found no inventive concept because Constellation’s alleged inventive concept (optimizing non-uniform constellations based on PD capacity) was the abstract idea itself. The Court therefore vacated the district court’s summary judgment of eligibility as to the optimization claims.
The Federal Circuit reached a different conclusion as to the constellation claims. Those claims did not broadly claim optimization but instead recited specific constellations developed using techniques described in the patents. The Court found that this distinction “makes all the difference” because the constellation claims recited a concrete implementation of a technological improvement directed to overcoming limitations in constellation capacity. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s finding that those claims were patent eligible.
The Federal Circuit also affirmed the denial of LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement. At trial, Constellation relied on the ATSC 3.0/A/322 standard to establish that the accused device met some claim limitations and product-specific evidence to establish that it met others. LG argued that, under Fujitsu v. Netgear (2010), a patent owner may rely on an industry standard only when practicing the standard necessarily satisfies every limitation of an asserted claim.
The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the Fujitsu framework applies on a limitation-by-limitation basis. A patent owner may establish a particular claim limitation through an industry standard when the relevant portion of the standard is sufficiently specific to demonstrate that practicing it necessarily satisfies that limitation and the relevant portion is mandatory – or, if optional, there is evidence that the accused product implements it. Other limitations may be proven through product-specific evidence. The Court explained that requiring separate proof for every accused product where a standard necessarily establishes a particular limitation would unnecessarily consume judicial resources. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s infringement verdict under that framework.
Finally, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s damages rulings. LG challenged Constellation’s expert’s reliance on certain third-party licenses to support a built-in apportionment theory, arguing that the licenses covered different patents, technologies, and products. The Court found sufficient evidence of comparability, including testimony concerning technical similarities between the licensed and asserted patents, their use in television broadcast standards, and similarities in the economic structure of the licenses. The Court therefore affirmed both the denial of LG’s motion to exclude the expert testimony and the denial of judgment as a matter of law of no damages.
